Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Marylin
|
|
Last Name
|
Cook
|
|
Decision Date
|
12/30/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2019-0726-LogED
|
|
ALJ
|
CHL
|
|
Respondent
|
Logan County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
PROF
|
|
Job Title
|
Teacher
|
|
Topics
|
Motion to Dismiss; Payment
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that its Motion to Dismiss should be granted. Whether Grievant proved that Respondent violated any duty to her, and proved that she is entitled to relief.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3 (2018); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(i)(2)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Leichliter v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993), aff’d, Pleasants Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 93-APC-1 (Dec. 2, 1994); Guthrie v. Dep’t of Health and Human Serv., Docket No. 95-HHR-277 (Jan. 31, 1996); Parker v. Summers County Bd. of Educ., 185 W. Va. 313, 406 S.E.2d 744 (1991); Franz v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 98-HHR-228 (Nov. 30, 1998); W. Va. Pub. Employees Ins. Bd. v. Blue Cross Hosp. Serv., Inc., 174 W. Va. 605, 328 S.E.2d 356 (1985); Allen v. Dep't. of Transp. and Division of Personnel, Docket No. 06-DOH-224 (January 31, 2007); Buckland v. Division of Natural Res., Docket No. 2008-0095-DOC (Oct. 6, 2008); Fields v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2013-1130-MinED (Feb. 4, 2014)
|
|
Keywords
|
Motion to Dismiss; Jurisdiction; Relief; Ultra Vires; Retirement Credit; Work-Related Injury; Workers’ Compensation; Duty; Diligence; Care; Vested; Buy Back
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was regularly employed by Respondent as a classroom teacher. Grievant suffered a work-related injury in October 2015 and was required to be off from work until January 2016. During her time off, Grievant received workers’ compensation benefits. Grievant did not automatically receive retirement credit for the time she was off work, but had the option of paying an amount of money to the Retirement Board to receive the credit. An employee in Respondent’s payroll department told Grievant the amount she was to remit to the Retirement Board to “buy back” her retirement credit. This amount wound up being incorrect and additional money was owed to the Retirement Board. Grievant argues that Respondent violated its duties to her and, as such, Respondent should be required to pay the outstanding sum to the Retirement Board. Respondent denies Grievant’s claims and argues it is not responsible for any additional sums due the Retirement Board. Grievant failed to prove her claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, the grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again